0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
92 vues2 pages
This case involved China Bank refusing to comply with a court order to disclose whether a judgment debtor had deposits with the bank. The bank cited Republic Act 1405, which prohibits disclosure of bank deposits. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that RA 1405 does not prevent disclosure of deposits to satisfy a judgment. The Court examined the legislative history and found lawmakers intended for deposits to be disclosed in civil cases to attach funds for payment of debts. The Supreme Court ordered the bank to determine if the judgment debtor had deposits that could be used to satisfy the judgment.
This case involved China Bank refusing to comply with a court order to disclose whether a judgment debtor had deposits with the bank. The bank cited Republic Act 1405, which prohibits disclosure of bank deposits. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that RA 1405 does not prevent disclosure of deposits to satisfy a judgment. The Court examined the legislative history and found lawmakers intended for deposits to be disclosed in civil cases to attach funds for payment of debts. The Supreme Court ordered the bank to determine if the judgment debtor had deposits that could be used to satisfy the judgment.
This case involved China Bank refusing to comply with a court order to disclose whether a judgment debtor had deposits with the bank. The bank cited Republic Act 1405, which prohibits disclosure of bank deposits. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that RA 1405 does not prevent disclosure of deposits to satisfy a judgment. The Court examined the legislative history and found lawmakers intended for deposits to be disclosed in civil cases to attach funds for payment of debts. The Supreme Court ordered the bank to determine if the judgment debtor had deposits that could be used to satisfy the judgment.
Hon. Wenceslao Ortega, as presiding Judge of the CFI of Manila
I. Doctrine AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION > Extrinsic Aids > Legislative Intent The necessity of going into the Conference Committee Report to understand the intention of the lawmakers II. Nature Petition for certiorari of CFI of Manila III. Facts 1. 1968, Dec 17: Vicente Acaban filed complaint against Bautista Logging Co., B & B Forest Development Corporation etc., for the collection of a sum of money 2. 1970, Jan 20: Defendants failed to answer and so Trial Court declared them in default 3. To satisfy said judgement Acaban sought deposit of B & B Forest Development Corporation with China Bank, having a notice of garnishment from the Deputy Sheriff 4. Tan Kim Liong, the cashier, invited the Deputy Sheriff to provisions of RA 1405 which, allegedly, prohibited disclosure of deposits 5. 1972, Mar 4: Trial Court denied plaintiffs motion. Tan Kim Liong was ordered to determine whether or not a deposit has been made. 6. 1972, Mar 27: Trial Court denied Tan Kim Liongs motion for reconsideration, ordering him to follow instructions in No. 5 of III. Of this Digest within ten days, otherwise he will be arrested 7. China Bank and Tan Kim Liong filed present petition to the SC IV. Issue WON a banking institution may validly refuse to comply with a court process garnishing the bank deposit of a judgment debtor, by invoking the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 (AN ACT PROHIBITING THE DISCLOSURE OR INQUIRY INTO DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR) V. Held RA 1405 does not prevent bank deposit from being disclosed in order to insure satisfaction of a judgment Pertinent Provisions of the Act: Sec. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. Sec 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits. Sec. 5. Any violation of this law will subject offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court. SC said: Court merely ordered knowledge of whether or not B & B Forest Development Corporation had a deposit in the China Banking Corporation. SC went into the Conference Committee Report to elucidate further. (most important parts are quoted below) Mr. RAMOS. It is only prohibited to the extent that the inquiry is limited, or rather, the inquiry is made only for the purpose of satisfying a tax liability already declared for the protection of the right in favor of the government; but when the object is merely to inquire whether he has a deposit or not for purposes of taxation, then this is fully covered by the law. XXX MR. MACAPAGAL: In such ordinary civil cases it can be attached? MR. RAMOS: That is so. VI. Rationale The SC found it hard to conceive that it was the intent of Congress to enable debtors to evade payment of their just debts by depositing their assets into a bank